If the deal now being negotiated fails, the most likely scenario is a repetition of the past. Iran will expand its nuclear program. If the other major powers believed that Iran’s offer was serious but U.S. and Israeli intransigence torpedoed it

The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment
By Sasan Fayazmanesh

rickyp wrote:well, I'm ashamed I cut my quote short before this..

If the deal now being negotiated fails, the most likely scenario is a repetition of the past. Iran will expand its nuclear program. If the other major powers believed that Iran’s offer was serious but U.S. and Israeli intransigence torpedoed it

,

Israel's political maneuvering in Washington was largely responsible for Bushe's turn around. . Mostly through AIPAC. I'm surprised you wouldn't accept this as a given... However if more is required...
From

The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment
By Sasan Fayazmanesh

You'll find on page 166 (Google Books won't let one cut and paste) the history of the AIPAC Conference and the constant lobbying on this issue. (I don't know if the link below works but go to google books and you'll find the references...

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SMiTAg ... ns&f=false

freeman3 wrote:First, the Netanyahu speech. Now Republicans writing to Iran directly and saying any agreement could be revoked by the next president. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6836146

The Daily News has called the 47 Republicans who signed the letter traitors. It may violate the Logan Act which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/629267

In any case, Republicans are favoring a foreign government (Israel) over the interests of our own government and that is wrong, even if it is not illegal.

No, "I wouldn't accept it as a given"

The Daily News has called the 47 Republicans who signed the letter traitors

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran's peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate

ray

No, "I wouldn't accept it as a given"

really? You don't think AIPAC has outside influence within Congress?
And you don't think Israel was lobbying hard against any traty accommodation of Iranian nuclear ambition throughout the 90s and 00's?
Are you serious? It's only just now with Netanyahu that this activity occurs?

Ray Jay wrote:So we are going to blame this on Israel too? I agree that the Senate Republicans acted incorrectly in writing this open letter. Inviting a head of government to provide a perspective to a joint session of your branch of government is ok. Writing to the other side's leader to undercut the President is not ok.

But can we acknowledge that US Senators have agency. They decided to do it. Just like Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld had agency in 2003 and 2005. The notion that they did this for Israel and not their own perception of their own political and national interests is offending.

Sassenach wrote:I doubt the Iranians needed to be told about the American electoral cycle. This is just grandstanding for domestic consumption.

Let's be clear: these Senators signed their own damn letter (and many Republicans who are against the potential agreement chose not to sign the letter). They did it for their own political reasons or because they viewed it to be in the US national interest. Israel and AIPAC didn't make them do

Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel gave Tom Cotton nearly $1 million in his race for the Senate just five months ago, Eli Clifton reported. “Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month.”

Cotton also got $165,000 from Elliott Management Paul Singer’s hedge fund. Singer is the billionaire who is trying to stop Obama’s Iran talks (Clifton’s reporting again). He funds the Israel Project too– Josh Block’s efforts.

Newsflash 2: special interests have been writing U.S. legislation and regulations for decades. It ain't just AIPAC